Talk:Department of Finance/Tax Room
Okay, let's start. I am going to split up this discussion in three parts: one about overall taxes, one about sales taxation (e.g. VAT), and one about special taxes on alcohol, tobacco, or other "unhealthy goods". We do not necessarily need each of these, but it seems like a good start to me. Overall tax I have no clue which tax policy to use. As you can see, there are tens and tens of types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation#Kinds_of_taxes. What I want, is a tax every citizen has to pay (so "overall"), that is less harsh on the less wealthy (thus "progressive"), but that does not scare away our wealthy investors. Could one of you guys propose a system of that kind? I don't need exact numbers yet: a basic idea would be good. Percival E. Galahad 11:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :That, sir, sounds like an awesome idea. BastardRoyale 11:19, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::There are two common used systems for progressive taxation I belief. (1) Progressive of the lower degree: you tax people a percentage of what they earn, have, generate etc. (2) Progressive taxation of the higher degree: you divide people over different income intervals and then give a percentage to each interval (increasing towards the higher intervals). Maybe we can keep the middle and use the first one BUT add an extra amount (not percentage) solely for the highest intervals. 10:15, June 19, 2010 (UTC) Sales tax In the European Union, it is known as VAT (Value Added Tax), in Canada as GST (Goods and Services Tax), etc. In the United States, there is no such federal system. Could anyone of you propose a working and fair consumption tax? Percival E. Galahad 11:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :Maybe 20% as a standard tax; then a lower rate like 10% for very basic services and goods such as food, public transport, books and newspapers - to make them cheaper for the less well-off. Possibly a higher rate for tobacco and spirits to discourage people from buying them. Semyon Edikovich 19:26, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::I'd say we keep the sales tax low to have more rome for economic growth. We should focus on the bad things: unhealthy or polluting production, the accumulation of huge capitals, risky investments and speculation, etc. 10:18, June 19, 2010 (UTC) :::I agree - the rate of 20% was just a random figure. The rate for basic goods should definately be lower thouh, I think. Semyon Edikovich 19:19, June 19, 2010 (UTC) Special taxes Like I said: tobacco, alcohol... Percival E. Galahad 11:08, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :No way dude. I need my cigars and my Jack Daniels. We need to allow people to purchase these items at a good price, do not make them extremely expensive. BastardRoyale 11:18, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::To make myself clear I repeat: in my opinion, taxes on tobacco is not a good solution, because to me, this means the government would be getting mony out of unhealthy habits,... just to pay the costs for the health insurance. We should start taxing the tobacco multinationals with their lobbying groups, that sounds more like it. --Lars Washington 11:35, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :::First of all: a glass of whine a day is healthy and a beer once in a while won't kill you, it may in fact do you good (*there ain't no party like an alcholic party*). As for smoking: its a personal choice and up to people to decide. All the government should do is inform people its bad, and then let them make the choice. Take down the fastfood business instead! People nowadays deepfrye everything, let us all eat more raw fish and simple vegetables, more tomatoes against high blood-pressure and other healthy things. BastardRoyale 11:43, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::::@BR: I think spirits rather than wine/beer were intended. ::::@Aesopos: I understand your point. It is indeed problematic when a government taxes alcohol/tobacco consumption and is therefore unable to ban those despicable habits, because it would cost the state too much. If we however make clear that we are willing to make the consumption GO DOWN, that we can tax it in the meantime. It HAS proven effective already. 11:56, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :::::Maybe the private insurance companies should get involved in this. --Lars Washington 12:17, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::::::How do you mean? :) 12:19, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Why not try it like this: no separate taxation on those products, just a higher tariff on the sale of them. It is then up to the producer/salesman to decide weather he rises the price or not. @Aesop: the goal is to get the use of those products down and since private insurance isn't obligatory, you would get a whole bunch of people living an unhealthy live without any insurance at all! It be because they don't take it or either can't get one. 10:11, June 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I still think it it not fair the entire community should pay for people who get ill by willingly smoking, drinking, drugs. It is known that health insurance companies, before accepting a new client, requires a list to be filled in which the wannabe insured has to confirm his habits. So, in my opinion, in order to avoid people being declined by the insurance companies for obvious reasons, people should be warned and not start these unhealthy habits. If you have an accident whilst being drunk, you have to pay for your damage too --Lars Washington 13:03, June 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::(1) no-one wants to be an alcoholic, it is a recognized decease. Real psychological damage is inflicted by the addiction. Do you really think any of them would let the chance to stop go by? They are victims. (2) Insurance companies have only one duty: making lots of money, hence the word 'company'. You can watch Micheal Moore's Sicko for some cool (read: inhumane) shifting techniques when screening clients. Society (by the state) is NOT a company, it is its duty to protect the weaker ones and help them. I don't say those people have no responsibility at all, but the community remains the best way to solve these problems. I'm kind of disappointed in your criminalizing blame-story, Aesop. 07:10, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::Alright i didn't read all the other convo and all that here's my liberal approach We give the middle class a break and the rich are TAXED! Also we put 8 cents - on every dollar (not including food) a special 10 cents - on every dollar to ciggerettes a special 9 cents - on every dollar to alcohol also... If both spouses have jobs that can be credited over. Marcus Villanova 15:25, June 21, 2010 (UTC) Oh AND WHY DON"T WE HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!! Marcus Villanova 15:26, June 21, 2010 (UTC) @ . Are you working for a tobacco multinational? Are you a lobbyist ? Cause it sounds like it! Discussion closed. --Lars Washington 16:14, June 21, 2010 (UTC) Marcus, your taxes need some rethinking. More money would probably be paid out in rebates than taxed. I'm just going to check some books of my dad's (he's a tax accountant). Semyon Edikovich 16:29, June 21, 2010 (UTC) :Couldn't find anything :( Semyon Edikovich 13:27, June 22, 2010 (UTC) :@Semyon - so you think we shouldn't give money back to the middle class? :@Yuri - I like all of Michael Moore's movie i own all of them. The latest one made me laugh, cry, and angry. If a documentary can do all that it's a good movie! Marcus Villanova 14:00, June 22, 2010 (UTC) ::@Lars: my proposal is actually taxing the companies in stead of the consumers, maybe you got me wrong? @Marcus: I know, his documentaries are a real example. I like your division of he tax burden but I believe we should focus on taxing production/transport in stead of consumption. 16:36, June 22, 2010 (UTC) ::@Marcus: giving money to the middle class is fine with me, I don't mind the rebates either. The idea is fine, but the sums don't add up. Most people earn less than $1 million, right? So they pay $2000 in tax. But if they have a job (as most earners do) they also get a $2000 rebate, as well as any other rebates. So basically, the government would be giving out more money than taking it. Semyon Edikovich 16:44, June 22, 2010 (UTC) ::I'll fix it, thnx! Marcus Villanova 20:58, June 22, 2010 (UTC) :::@ Taxing the production, import, export, distribution, transport of all these goods instead of consumption of it, that is exactly what I have been saying all the way down. That means you agree with me --Lars Washington 17:20, June 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well, my mistake then. I'm glad we agree even though I didn't know we did. 07:46, June 27, 2010 (UTC)